Some people feel that feeding a child with organic produce would help, also I feel this theory is just scaremongering. Is feeding our children genetically modified foods causing harm on them? or was it chemical interference? i.e vaccines or other substances over the years we ourselves have ingested to change the genetic makeup of our children?
Some people feel that feeding a child with organic produce would help, also I feel this theory is just scaremongering. Is feeding our children genetically modified foods causing harm on them? or was it chemical interference? i.e vaccines or other substances over the years we ourselves have ingested to change the genetic makeup of our children?
To be honest I think there's harm to everyone, some more susceptible than others, and sometimes changing diet can work wonders. However sadly it can't take away something like autism simply because they still don't know what's causing it.
My husband was suffering terribly last year with his digestive system and stopped eating the microwaveable meals to help with the medication. Thankfully it worked but I still believed it couldn't be just that. I was wrong..now I too have stopped eating them as often the difference is amazing. Not so many years ago our foods didn't contain the rubbish they do now and it's amazing how something seemingly so insignificant can do harm over a period of time.
Autism has been around for many years now but wasn't as well known. One reason was that children tended to be hidden away which was sad. Now parents aren't afraid anymore and with the education system making efforts to help in many areas of a child's learning (sometimes at least) we're seeing autism and ADHD, for eg, more and more. I think that scientists have an idea what's causing it but I have an uncomfortable feeling it will cause outrage and it's not the MMR I feel either. But I can honestly say even though we do worry more because our child will need extra help when he grows we're okay with it. Just curious to hear any answers like many other parents.
The dangers of sceptism in regards to this subject is that it can destroy all hope
What an absolutely ridiculous and pig-ignorant thing to come out with.
Skepticism does not mean "not believing in things" - it's all about looking into the claims for things and finding what is the best evidence-based option. And when it comes to claims for autism treatments that means looking into the claims and finding out which ones may actually work and which ones have been disproved.
Wasting your time, effort and money on bogus interventions can have consequences for both you and your child (!) and all because you think you know better than science. Who mentioned the word "arrogance"?
Perhaps if you guys actually learned what skepticism is (and realised that not believing in Derek Acorah does not mean you're a skeptic) then you might be on the first step to making better decisions.
As it is, you're behaving in exactly the same manner as those who believe they are psychics and those who believe in them - blind, unquestioning belief based on your own 'personal insight'.
What an absolutely ridiculous and pig-ignorant thing to come out with.
Actually Jigsaw,this is more relevant to the post that you typed this statement in and some of things you have said within this thread.
Skepticism does not mean "not believing in things"
Absolutely agree with you,hence why I never actually stated that
- it's all about looking into the claims for things and finding what is the best evidence-based option.
Based upon what evidence based option Jigsaw? The sceptics only endorsed option or the medical professionals that work along side the parents every single day?
And when it comes to claims for autism treatments that means looking into the claims and finding out which ones may actually work and which ones have been disproved.
And ?
Wasting your time, effort and money on bogus interventions can have consequences for both you and your child (!)
I of course am presuming you are speaking n general terms rather than specifically about me, because if this is regarding my situation specifically you would need to be able to answer the following .What exactly have I wasted my money upon? What bogus interventions have I instigated that have caused any dire consequences for my child?
and all because you think you know better than science. Who mentioned the word "arrogance"?
You know what Jigsaw you hug science to your chest as closely as a minister with his bible. Both have been proved wrong on many occasions! I haven't actually mentioned arrogance,but regarding your posts on this subject there is more than a touch of that.
Perhaps if you guys actually learned what skepticism is (and realised that not believing in Derek Acorah does not mean you're a skeptic) then you might be on the first step to making better decisions.
Perhaps if you actually lived our lives,had the experiences we have had directly,consulted actual experts in this field . Spent years researching,debating and discussing this subject that directly touches your child's/families life, you might be on the first step of not making such unfounded and ludicrous assumptions about us guys!
As it is, you're behaving in exactly the same manner as those who believe they are psychics and those who believe in them -
No, we are behaving as parents of Autistic children,experienced at dealing with all aspects both the physical and mental affects of this disorder!
unquestioning belief based on your own 'personal insight'
And this is where you have obviously failed to actually digest anything that any of us have posted. Unquestioning? That is all we do,every single bloody day is question!
On a more personal note....Jigsaw, I find your posts extremely rude,arrogant and basically I refuse any longer to be spoken to or about in such a manner by someone who obviously believes unquestionably that they are right based upon oh lets see.... That your a sceptic and have studied this subject for one bloody module from a three year basic psychology degree! You have the audacity and yes the arrogance to assume all manner of things about myself and other parents? I am sorry but who are you again?
This could have been an informative topic that could have been discussed based upon current scientific knowledge and the latest scientific evidence regarding the understanding of and treatments/interventions for autism.
Sadly, as with many such emotionally-charged topics, it's actually the very people who could benefit most from an evidence-based discussion who are the most difficult to deal with and who are the least willing to engage in discussion.
This thread is a microcosm of the difficulty that true skeptics (as opposed to those who think they are skeptics because they don't believe in Derek Acorah) face. The vast majority of people cannot let go of their own 'personal perspective' and 'emotional biases' and actually look at the bigger picture.
That really is a shame as having got this far and having joined a skeptics' forum that promotes the skeptical method of inquiry, people are still taking a positional stance regarding skepticism (I don't believe....) rather than embracing the true method of skepticism (I want to find out...) and pig-headedly adhering to personal preference rather than scientific inquiry.
It's a crying bloody shame that people have got this far and not learned a feckin' thing.
This website and the people on it are a valuable resource to be used, not an enemy of reason and evidential inquiry!!!
What is bogus about eating healthier and avoiding nasty chemicals in our food and cleaning products? How do we put our children in danger by feeding them fresh veggies and fruits?
You're just looking for an argument on this subject, and you're going to lose. Considering Kendra and I are both parents of autistic children that have taken to eating healthier and we have both seen results, that's all we need to know.
If we were endorsing chelation therapy or taking our children to psychics for healing, then you could say we were "[w]asting your time, effort and money on bogus interventions can have consequences for both you and your child." We're not, though.
As far as studies goes, here's some links for you:
The dangers of sceptism in regards to this subject is that it can destroy all hope
What an absolutely ridiculous and pig-ignorant thing to come out with.
Well as a mum of two autistic children who DOESN'T believe it's the MMR vaccine that caused it you are now beginning to offend me too. The only ignorance I see here is someone who uses "science" constantly. You are not willing to accept anything else.
Skepticism does not mean "not believing in things" - it's all about looking into the claims for things and finding what is the best evidence-based option. And when it comes to claims for autism treatments that means looking into the claims and finding out which ones may actually work and which ones have been disproved.
And what has "skepticism" got to do with parents believing one thing or another?? I am the reverse of Kendra when it comes to what I believe has caused the autism so does that mean I'm not skeptical too..no it doesn't. I haven't ruled out the possibility that the MMR vaccine could trigger something..in other words I'm open to more than the arrogance we get from many scientists.
Wasting your time, effort and money on bogus interventions can have consequences for both you and your child (!) and all because you think you know better than science. Who mentioned the word "arrogance"?
Parents DO know better than some white coat when it comes to their child thank you very much. And they know more than someone who has removed all the emotion from the subject just to deal with what a scientist believes themselves. I'm a good driver but it doesn't make me Lewis Hamilton..in other words you may have learnt this and read that but without personal experience you cannot fire at parents who know their child. That is arrogance of the highest form.
Perhaps if you guys actually learned what skepticism is (and realised that not believing in Derek Acorah does not mean you're a skeptic) then you might be on the first step to making better decisions.
Eyeye in pops old Dezza here..two very opposing subjects, totally unrelated. Autism has nothing to do with skepticism and whenever someone approaches a family who deal with autism everyday this way it will inevitably result in a fruitless argument.
As it is, you're behaving in exactly the same manner as those who believe they are psychics and those who believe in them - blind, unquestioning belief based on your own 'personal insight'.
Again what the hell has "psychics" got to do with it?? Is your statement here solely based on the fact you've lost the argument. I re-iterate that I DO NOT believe the MMR is responsible but your mannerisms and personal attacks on parents this way is disgusting. Please leave the psychic and skeptic bit out of it and if you can't even try to see how emotionally charged this subject is I suggest you leave it alone. Solve this riddle face..egg..on because that is what will happen if it hasn't already to you.
This thread is a microcosm of the difficulty that true skeptics (as opposed to those who think they are skeptics because they don't believe in Derek Acorah) face
Jigsaw,you keep on about this.Do you really believe BP is purely a sceptics only forum, or for sceptics only? It never has been and I doubt never will be and hallelujah for that! BP is is a diverse forum with members stemming from all sides of the damned fence with varying experiences...Get over it!
This could have been an informative topic that could have been discussed based upon current scientific knowledge and the latest scientific evidence regarding the understanding of and treatments/interventions for autism.
Sadly, as with many such emotionally-charged topics, it's actually the very people who could benefit most from an evidence-based discussion who are the most difficult to deal with and who are the least willing to engage in discussion.
This thread is a microcosm of the difficulty that true skeptics (as opposed to those who think they are skeptics because they don't believe in Derek Acorah) face. The vast majority of people cannot let go of their own 'personal perspective' and 'emotional biases' and actually look at the bigger picture.
That really is a shame as having got this far and having joined a skeptics' forum that promotes the skeptical method of inquiry, people are still taking a positional stance regarding skepticism (I don't believe....) rather than embracing the true method of skepticism (I want to find out...) and pig-headedly adhering to personal preference rather than scientific inquiry.
It's a crying bloody shame that people have got this far and not learned a feckin' thing.
This website and the people on it are a valuable resource to be used, not an enemy of reason and evidential inquiry!!!
What has Derek Acorah got to do with this thread on MMR vaccines? this debate is off truth and fact, Fact children have and do die of vaccines, Truth children are autistic because of some kind of outside force whether that be Chemical or Organic who knows, I am led to believe what I know of MMR vaccine and the faulty batch of vaccines that were used on thousands of children in 1991, that is FACT. I have so much data on this I really must dig it all out and maybe scan some of it for you to read, it makes good reading material.
Intrestingly enough I found this article, now I am not saying the government cover things up but I found this quite a good read.
Mercury and autism in the UK
John Stone's three part investigation was first published in Red Flags 1-6 February 2006, and is reproduced with permission. It is based on documents including Freedom of Information answers obtained both in the UK and the USA.
Mercury and Autism in the UK By John Stone
Synopsis: Mercury and Autism in the United Kingdom 1. The British Government and the WHO A series of articles concerning vaccine mercury and the rising incidence of autism published in the Sunday Times in the summer of 2001 led to a flurry of activity. The licensing authority took immediate action to protect itself and the pharmaceutical industry from litigation by issuing a safety warning, but pressure was maintained on parents and GPs to accept the mercury contaminated vaccine. A letter to the Sunday Times from Elizabeth Miller, the head of the Government’s Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS), Immunisation Division, gives the impression that the infant mercury load had not gone up in the period since 1988 turned out to be misleading, and the opposite was the case. The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a study from the PHLS to look into the toxicity of mercury vaccine, but when the study was eventually published (more than two years after it was presented in camera to the WHO) it stated that the amount of mercury in the official UK programme was “the same” as the WHO programme, when in fact the official UK exposure from birth to three months was only just over a quarter of the WHO burden.
2. The Long Arm of the CDC
Correspondence obtained from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States shows that they were involved in reviewing whether the WHO/PHLS study should go ahead despite the incomparability of the official UK and WHO mercury burdens, and the serious inadequacy of the UK data source, the General Practitioners’ Research Database. Despite major scientific objections the project received the green light. British government documents have come to light which state that the UK mercury burden from the routine schedule would in some cases have been double what has been publicly admitted. Something, which though officially denied, has never been adequately explained.
3. The Public Health Laboratory Service study reviewed
The authors of the PHLS study fail to disclose significant conflicts of interest, and failed to deny them when challenged. The study fails to account for what happened to additional exposure to vaccine mercury beyond the routine programme, despite much external evidence that it was considerable. The authors fail to acknowledge that in a separate study they discovered a 109% increase in the incidence of diagnosed autism in north east London synchronous with introduction of the accelerated DPT schedule in 1990, although the Sunday Times report had originally identified the lowering of the age at which infants received vaccine as a probable cause for the rise of autism. Numerous problems emerge concerning the reliability of the database (GPRD) and the opaque methodology of the study: the percentage of cases of autism identified (approx 0.1%) is of the order of one tenth of official estimates (approx 1%). Another study using the GPRD only discovered an incidence of autism of a magnitude one tenth of the PHLS study for the period (approx 0.001%). A further study testifies to the unsystematic body of data relating to autism in the database. The PHLS study is shown to exclude cases in an arbitrary and far from transparent manner. A statement from the UK Department of Health, indicative of deep-seated research bias, admits that the attitude of government health officials to concern about vaccine mercury has always been dismissive, and that it has always been government policy that no real concern about the matter exists.
There is actually a lot of concern regarding parents using or forcing inappropriate and even damaging 'treatments and cures' on their autistic children - and that includes dietary interventions (!)
I'm thinking of the work of Patricia Howlin, for example. She's a leading researcher in the field who's trying to do the best she can for parents in providing evidence-based options and trying to rule out the harmful claims (including silly fad diets etc.) that can end up harming the autistic children even though they are used with the best intentions.
I might email her and tell her to put her research on the back burner as it seems that parents already know better than the experts.
Now, a rational thinker might expect that offering evidence-based information on various treatments to parents would receive a positive reaction and a willingness to have a look and assess the information.
But, as I said, the reaction has been emotional, hostile, and pig-ignorant. This is a general response skeptics get when attempting to put forward a rational perspective. It's the response we always get when dealing with people who hold irrational beliefs.
And the point about psychics. OK, you've missed the point (again); but I expect some of you are here because you think Acorah is a fake psychic (i.e. your skepticism is based on not believing rather than the investigative attitude that it should be) and with this particular issue, you are behaving in exactly the same manner as those who have a blind belief in psychics.
You mean you have actually read them rather than just picking bits and bobs out of them?
There is actually a lot of concern regarding parents using or forcing inappropriate and even damaging 'treatments and cures' on their autistic children - and that includes dietary interventions (!)
lol do you think we do this without consulting our GPs first?
I'm thinking of the work of Patricia Howlin, for example. She's a leading researcher in the field who's trying to do the best she can for parents in providing evidence-based options and trying to rule out the harmful claims (including silly fad diets etc.)
Oh silly fad diets like fresh fruit and vegtables,reducing the addative intakes in food, like the goverment promotes you mean?
I might email her and tell her to put her research on the back burner as it seems that parents already know better than the experts.
Experts like who...you? Get over yourself Jigsaw. Her research is done and dusted then is it? Data in and a full report with provable findings that the medical board have endorsed and are implementing throughout the country? No...I thought not!
Now, a rational thinker might expect that offering evidence-based information on various treatments to parents would receive a positive reaction and a willingness to have a look and assess the information.
And what are you baseing a rational thinker upon Jigsaw, yourself?
But, as I said, the reaction has been emotional, hostile, and pig-ignorant.
Yup and thats just starting with your posts!
This is a general response skeptics get when attempting to put forward a rational perspective.
What exactly are you being sceptical here of Jigsaw? You keep mentioning Derek Acorah and such crap with no relevance to this thread. So what exactly are you being sceptical of?
It's the response we always get when dealing with people who hold irrational beliefs.
Beliefs..in what Jigsaw?
And the point about psychics. OK, you've missed the point (again); but I expect some of you are here because you think Acorah is a fake psychic (i.e. your skepticism is based on not believing rather than the investigative attitude that it should be)
Jigsaw, give up the ghost mate its getting old.
and with this particular issue, you are behaving in exactly the same manner as those who have a blind belief in psychics.
We are viewing our children,their health,emotional well being etc the same way psychics are viewed....Jigsaw,seriously f*ck off you really are coming across and I expect actually are a complete and utter muppet!
Jigsaw, you've done nothing to argue against the fact that eating healthier is good for our children...whether they're autistic or not.
Where did we ever say we're doing a fad diet? No where.
Where did we ever say we were doing unproven treatments? No where.
I suppose you missed my thread where I had links where there was, gasp, scientific research done or being done on diet and autism? Did you miss all the research done on how eating healthier generally is good for us?
Whether my son had AS or not, I would rather feed my family some nice steamed green beans, homemade mashed potatoes, and a broiled chicken than anything else. Again, you're trying to make an argument and insult us by saying we're not skeptical (is that even an insult?), when you don't have a leg to stand upon.
We're not rubbing them with crystals or injecting them with chelatin. We're feeding them healthy food instead of pre-packaged rubbish. You've yet to explain how that is wrong.
And although I hate to stoop to your level, my guess is you probably live off of garbage and the woman that does the British show I watch on BBCA "You Are What You Eat" would probably drop dead from shock seeing what you put into your body. How overweight and lonely are you?
What you don't seem to understand, you over-weight troll, is that this is not a fad or unproven diet, but eating fresh foods and not pre-packaged crap full of preservatives. I know my son's doctors are all for what we're doing, so it's not ignorance I'm going by. Really, just STFU and go back to your back of Cheetos or whatever it is you eat when you're trolling the boards.
Idiot.
img.Report this post to Admin please.com/albums/v501/ScarlettFyrre/dragoncon-banner2.gif[/IMG]
If I had a child die from measles caught from someone who was deliberately un-vaccinated I'd sue for manslaughter. It's a deliberate ignoring of the scientific facts involved. Of course it's a terrible situation but trying to randomly point the finger at something that has saved thousands of lives smacks of desperation to find something or something to blame. Sorry.
I stopped the bus for Sebastian Coe, He couldn't catch it for he was too slow.